Star Trek

[Murgos]

It was both deliberate and poorly done all at the same time.

[Velorath]

As long as we're nitpicking, I could have done without the Slusho reference also.

[Rishathra]

It was both deliberate and poorly done all at the same time.

I guess after the ordeal that was Young Anakin, child acting has to be a particularly high level of gruesome in order for me to notice.

[Soln]

Um.  Wot now?

[Hawkbit]

 

[gryeyes]

[UnSub]

 

[Venkman]

So I've seen that "timeline tries to heal itself" bit a few times in this thread. When did that become part of Trek? I don't remember seeing it, but really haven't paid attention in years.

[Hawkbit]

[Miasma]

 

Also I think we can stop using spoiler quotes by now...

[Chimpy]

I think the whole "give him the formula" thing was kind of an homage to the "Transparent Aluminum" scene in Star Trek IV. At least that is what instantly came to mind. Mainly because that is really the only Star Trek movie I remember well.

[Slyfeind]

tory later on. 
2.  The kid Spock scene was terribly acted.  As in Phantom Menace Anakin bad. 

Wasn't that deliberate, though?  I enjoyed that scene because it was an example of that even when Vulcans are trash talking each other, they are bland and deadpan.

When I saw that scene, I was reminded of the horrible horrible short comic that showed Vulcan kids chasing Spock and throwing tomatoes or someshit, chanting "Spock, Spock, your head's an Earth rock!" and his mother shedding a tear over the anguish that must be within Spock's soul. Then Spock is crying in his mother's arms going "Why they hate Spock? Why mama why?"

Holy crap that was awful. It was like JJ Abrams read that comic too, and went "Holy fuck I'm going to straighten that shit out right quick by cracky." Works for me!

[Hawkbit]

tory later on. 
2.  The kid Spock scene was terribly acted.  As in Phantom Menace Anakin bad. 

Wasn't that deliberate, though?  I enjoyed that scene because it was an example of that even when Vulcans are trash talking each other, they are bland and deadpan.

When I saw that scene, I was reminded of the horrible horrible short comic that showed Vulcan kids chasing Spock and throwing tomatoes or someshit, chanting "Spock, Spock, your head's an Earth rock!" and his mother shedding a tear over the anguish that must be within Spock's soul. Then Spock is crying in his mother's arms going "Why they hate Spock? Why mama why?"

Holy crap that was awful. It was like JJ Abrams read that comic too, and went "Holy fuck I'm going to straighten that shit out right quick by cracky." Works for me!

I never read the comic, but a trekkie at work told me that was his exact impression of it too. 

[Broughden]

I saw the movie tonight, finally.  Was very fun.  Recommended viewing.

+1 Liked it.

[Khaldun]

I thought the kid scene was also a nod to the surprisingly good episode of the cartoon show where Spock goes back in time to visit himself. (!! fuck, he does that a lot. I'm beginning to suspect a sexual fetish or something.) It had some scenes with Spock being hassled by other Vulcan kids that were very similar in feel to the film's scenes.

As far as nerd commentary goes, I don't think there is any evidence that the timeline tries to heal itself in Trek's canon--quite the contrary, Trek's canon argues that you can change the past and sometimes to devastating effect, and that it takes serious, difficult effort to restore the timeline to something approximating what it was. The show does argue though also for alternate realities and parallel dimensions--not just the Mirror, Mirror universe, but for example the Enterprise-C went into the future due to a space warp, encountered an alternate-universe Enterprise-D that was a byproduct of the C having dropped out of the past, and then went back to its past, but carrying an alternate-universe version of Tasha Yar.

Shorter version: Trek's version of time travel is like Trek's version of technology, a scriptwriting MacGuffin that can basically do whatever the script calls for it to do. Trying to make it make sense is pointless, the only thing to ask is, "Was the MacGuffin manipulated in service to an otherwise good story?" With this film, I'd say yeah, basically, though I'm still unconvinced that they had any need for time-travelling shit to make it all work out.

[Koyasha]

Liked the movie overall, one of the better trek movies (and better movies in general) I've seen in a while.

Quibble about the way warp speed was handled though, since it made no sense whatsoever when compared with every single other instance of warp speed in the entire Star Trek franchise that I can think of.  Seemed to be handled more like hyperspeed from Star Wars where you appear to be oblivious to normal space until you drop out of hyperspeed.

[Samwise]

THAT'S what that scene with them dropping out of warp reminded me of.

Anyone remember how warp travel looked in Enterprise?  Maybe it can be explained away by the older-model sensors not working very well at warp speeds, leaving you mostly blind until you drop out into sublight.

[Venkman]

Actually, I think that's how it's supposed to work in Trek. I could be mixing memories of old books and shows, but warp space (and transwarp, and TNG-era hyperwarp, slipstream, and sidewarp from the awesome original backstory for Zephram Cochrane in Federation]) are all "other" spaces. They're just smaller than normal space so it takes a shorter amount of time to go a longer relative distance. When you pop out of warp back into normal space, you've covered more distance. Some, like warp space, can interact with regular space, but not in the usual way. In warp you can go through things with less mass (and it's like shooting a lightspeed bullet through them, so no kinetic transfer, but it could break apart anyway), but big ass gravity wells will pull you right out of warp.

They don't spend as much screen/story time talking about navigation like they do with all that "plot a course to X" in Star Wars. But it's as much a requirement in Trek universe because you can't just go in a straight line.

Incidentally, that same Cochrane book also explained how warp power worked, and why the Starfleet symbol looks the way it is (it's actually the plotted graph of how warp and normal power work, with the star being infinite energy I think). Even it is a retcon (or not) it was a great read.

And yes, this is all from memory. So either a) I've gone completely around the bend, b) mashing together a bunch of geek fantasies and therefore way wrong; or, c) just succeeded in writing the geekiest thing I've written all day.

[UnSub]

So I've seen that "timeline tries to heal itself" bit a few times in this thread. When did that become part of Trek? I don't remember seeing it, but really haven't paid attention in years.

I don't know if it is Trek canon, but allegedly it was a deleted scene in the film that mentioned it.

Also, it's a lazy way of dealing with trying to change history through time travel. Dean Koontz did it in Lightning Road, but at least he as consistent about doing it multiple times that then forced the protagonist to make more changes.

[Ironwood]

Actually, I think that's how it's supposed to work in Trek. I could be mixing memories of old books and shows, but warp space (and transwarp, and TNG-era hyperwarp, slipstream, and sidewarp from the awesome original backstory for Zephram Cochrane in Federation]) are all "other" spaces. They're just smaller than normal space so it takes a shorter amount of time to go a longer relative distance. When you pop out of warp back into normal space, you've covered more distance. Some, like warp space, can interact with regular space, but not in the usual way. In warp you can go through things with less mass (and it's like shooting a lightspeed bullet through them, so no kinetic transfer, but it could break apart anyway), but big ass gravity wells will pull you right out of warp.

They don't spend as much screen/story time talking about navigation like they do with all that "plot a course to X" in Star Wars. But it's as much a requirement in Trek universe because you can't just go in a straight line.

Incidentally, that same Cochrane book also explained how warp power worked, and why the Starfleet symbol looks the way it is (it's actually the plotted graph of how warp and normal power work, with the star being infinite energy I think). Even it is a retcon (or not) it was a great read.

And yes, this is all from memory. So either a) I've gone completely around the bend, b) mashing together a bunch of geek fantasies and therefore way wrong; or, c) just succeeded in writing the geekiest thing I've written all day.

Um.

No.

[Koyasha]

Warp speed in Star Trek creates a warp bubble around the ship that "bends" the fabric of space-time and allows you to go faster than light, it doesn't shunt you into an alternate-space or something.  And you can't pass through other objects either.

Some of the Transwarp technologies do seem to function on some sort of limited alternate-space function, like the borg tubes or whatever, but for the most part you just go faster.

Logically, any FTL travel of any form would make you completely blind to everything to your sides and behind you, and give you a limited timeframe to percieve things in front of you before you are there, but that's just not the way it's ever worked in Trek before, because of subspace sensors or something like that.  Simply put, look at most random episodes of most Star Trek series: even when going at warp you can see what's in front of you before you get there.

[Lakov_Sanite]

Arguing technology in star trek is like arguing technology in star wars.

Don't.

[Ratman_tf]

Arguing technology in star trek is like arguing technology in star wars.

Don't.

Transwarp!

[Venkman]

Warp speed in Star Trek creates a warp bubble around the ship that "bends" the fabric of space-time and allows you to go faster than light, it doesn't shunt you into an alternate-space or something.  And you can't pass through other objects either.

Tell that to Peter David 

You're debating from a position of knowledge that can't possible be one of confidence given how stupidly inconsistent they've been. Someone said it earlier: all tech in Trek is merely a whimsical plot device for the momentary need of a story.

Fun to geek out, but this doesn't even qualify as a disagreement. There's simply nothing here to discuss.

[naum]

I love how when popular sci-fi/fantasy flick/(or book) invites far fetched whimsical allegorical comparisons to RL.

In this episode, I give you:

Star Trek and the Jews
http://www.takimag.com/sniperstower/article/star_trek_and_the_jews

About half way through, I started to get the sense that “the Vulcans” were a metaphor for the Jews. Much of the plot of the new Trek hinges around the “genocide” of “six billion” of Spock’s countrymen. Add the Vulcans themselves aren’t just smart and traditionalist; they strictly observe a hierarchal and highly ritualistic religion and code of conduct. One gets the impression that “Vulcan logic” isn’t just rational, but part of a much grander system that resembles Kabbalah in its level of complexity. And the Vulcan Ways, which are so successful in preserving tradition and religion, are certainly an affront to individualism. The half-human Spock actually leaves his home planet because of its oppressive anti-human bigotry, and after joining Starfleet, ends up dating a black girl (the perky Zoe Saldana (“Nyota Uhura”), who for most of the film seems to be wearing a galactic Bluetooth device).

Anyway, after googling a bit, I found that I definitely wasn’t the first to make the Vulcan-Jewish connection, indeed a whole book’s been written on it! And there’s a fascinating YouTube video of Leonard Nimoy discussing his invention of the famous Vulcan salute, which he borrowed from a ritual in his Orthodox Schule in which the rabbis signed with their hands the Hebrew letter “shin,” ש, the first letter of “Shaddai” (“Almighty God).

[jayfyve]

I love how when popular sci-fi/fantasy flick/(or book) invites far fetched whimsical allegorical comparisons to RL.

Well, in an interview on the Creative Screenwriting Magazine,  

Star Trek Q&A

Senior Editor Jeff Goldsmith interviews co-writers Alex Kurtzman and Roberto Orci.

Here's a link.

[Megrim]

Saw it. Cute movie, but a) too much lensflare, b) what's red-matter? Also, space-ship battles looked terrible, and furthermore, i don't think this director understands what 'dramatic involvement' for an audience actually means.

[Quinton]

b) what's red-matter?

Movie version of "particle of the week", I guess!

[UnSub]

b) what's red-matter?

Matter with socialist beliefs.

[K9]

Also, space-ship battles looked terrible

This I disagree with, I think these were the best space battles ever visualised in a Trek film.

[Morat20]

Logically, any FTL travel of any form would make you completely blind to everything to your sides and behind you, and give you a limited timeframe to percieve things in front of you before you are there, but that's just not the way it's ever worked in Trek before, because of subspace sensors or something like that.  Simply put, look at most random episodes of most Star Trek series: even when going at warp you can see what's in front of you before you get there.

One would assume that if you were moving FTL, you'd have sensors that worked FTL. Or else, yes, you'd be up shit creek because you'd have already hit something and died before you actually had a chance to see it.

All FTL stuff, from pretty much every source, is an attempt to cheat Einstein. Warp space, hyperspace, whatever they call it is an attempt to postulate some place that corresponds to normal space, but where relative distance is shorter -- or the speed of light is higher.

I've heard Star Trek warp drive most oftenly referred to as a bubble of warped space-time -- one of NASA's blue sky programs actually plays with the math of this, in fact. I think they find the energy requirements to be somewhere past infinite, but it's at least plausible that you could put space-time through a ringer around a given volume, and it's squirt that volume forward at multiples of light-speed, but to anything IN the volume, it'd be standing still.

Of course, all that relies on models of the universe that are currently up in the air. Whether or not any form of FTL is possible, energy requirements aside, depends upon understanding the nuts and bolts of the universe -- the math all seems to end up in the very areas we don't understand.

Having said that: Quite enjoyed the movie.

[Triforcer]

Fantastic.  Saw it with my girlfriend, who generally dislikes both action and scifi, and she loved it and wants to see it again.  I hesitate to say this because I'm sure it would devolve, but PLEASE give us a TV series with this crew. 

[Samwise]

Or maybe just give us a TV series with competent writers (like Abrams) at the helm from the get-go, instead of the crew who gave us Lizard Space Hitler.

[pxib]

Saw it with my girlfriend, who generally dislikes both action and scifi, and she loved it and wants to see it again.

It's not action or scifi, though it contains both. It's a character piece about how these people interact and why. TV has been dropping this sort of stuff into every imaginable genre for more than a decade, and laughing all the way to the bank. Only geeks enjoy scifi for scifi's sake, or action for action's sake. Many more people are willing to accept them as seasoning to an already entertaining ensemble piece.

[UnSub]

Or maybe just give us a TV series with competent writers (like Abrams) at the helm from the get-go,

For the record, the official writers of this "Star Trek" movie are also responsible for "The Island" (the island of clones movie that had to pay out for stealing heavily from another cult film), "Eagle Eye" and "Transformers". They also appear to be pet writers of Abrahms.

Plus: the script wasn't the strong point of this film.